Mahender Singh Chawla Vs Union of India… — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

Mahender Singh Chawla Vs Union of India… — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of: liberty granted to the petitioner to file a fresh application under the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 (as amended in 2020) before the competent authority of the State of Haryana, with a direction to pass an appropriate order after considering his threat perceptions within a reasonable time; no further direction on implementation as replies showed meticulous implementation and budget allocation. In CM-6-CWP-2025, the Rs.25,000/- cost imposed on respondent no.4-UT, Chandigarh was ordered to be made good.

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 21.12.2019 (Annexure P-6) of respondent no.5 dismissing the petitioner's application under clause 5 of the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 (as amended in 2020) should be quashed and protection measures under clauses 4, 7, 11 and 15 granted. +1 more

Court's answer

Instead of quashing the order dated 21.12.2019, the Court granted the petitioner liberty to approach the competent authority of the State of Haryana again under the Witness Protection Scheme of 2018 (as amended in 2020) by filing a fresh application.

Ratio / Principle

If the petitioner files such a fresh application, the concerned respondent shall pass an appropriate order after considering his threat perceptions, if any, within a reasonable time period.

Key takeaways

On the replies filed by the respondents/States/UT, the Scheme was found to have been implemented meticulously and budget allocated, with beneficiaries granted protection; therefore no further direction was required on implementation.ratio¶30
In CM-6-CWP-2025, the Court modified the co-ordinate bench order dated 10.12.2024 and the cost of Rs.25,000/- imposed upon respondent no.4-UT, Chandigarh was ordered to be made good.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India (CWP-9688-2020 O&M, decided 11.03.2025, Kuldeep Tiwari, J.) challenging the order dated 21.12.2019 (Annexure P-6) of respondent no.5 dismissing the petitioner's application under clause 5 of the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 (as amended in 2020) for protection measures under clauses 4, 7, 11 and 15. The Court expanded the scope of the petition to examine implementation of the Scheme and budget allocation by the State of Punjab, State of Haryana and UT, Chandigarh; the replies showed meticulous implementation, budget allocation and beneficiaries granted protection, so no further direction was issued. Instead of quashing the dismissal order, liberty was granted to the petitioner to file a fresh application before the competent authority of the State of Haryana, with a direction to decide it after considering his threat perceptions, if any, within a reasonable time. In CM-6-CWP-2025, the Rs.25,000/- cost imposed on respondent no.4-UT, Chandigarh by co-ordinate bench order dated 10.12.2024 was ordered to be made good. Petition disposed of accordingly.

218

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CWP-9688-2020 (O&M)

Date of Decision : 11.03.2025

MAHENDER SINGH CHAWLA .....Petitioner

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS .....Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI

Present : Mr. Sanjay Ghalawat, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Satya Pal Jain, Additional Solicitor General of India with Ms. Saigeeta Srivastava, Advocate, for respondent no.1-UOI.

Mr.Pankaj Mulwani, DAG, Haryana.

Mr. Sahil R. Bakshi, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Mayank Sharma, Advocate, for applicant/respondent no.4-UT, Chandigarh.

KULDEEP TIWARI, J.(Oral)

CM-6-CWP-2025

This application has been filed on behalf of respondent no.4-

UT, Chandigarh, seeking modification of the order dated 10.12.2024, as passed by a co-ordinate bench, whereby, a cost of Rs.25,000/- has been imposed.

For the good and valid assigned in the application, this Court

DHARAM VIR 2025.03.13 12:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-9688-2020 (O&M) -2-

deems it appropriate to modify the order ( supra ), and the cost of Rs.25,000/-, as imposed upon the respondent no.4-UT, Chandigarh, is ordered to be made good.

3. Disposed of accordingly.

CWP-9688-2020

Through the instant writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, a prayer is made for quashing of order dated 21.12.2019 (Annexure P-6), passed by respondent no.5, whereby the application filed by the present petitioner under clause 5 of the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 (as amended in 2020), for taking protection measures under clauses 4, 7, 11 and 15 thereof, has been dismissed.

He further seeks issuance of a direction upon respondents no.1 to 4 for implementation of the aforesaid Scheme. 6 During the course of hearing, this Court has expanded the scope of the instant petition, as the State of Punjab, as well as UT, Chandigarh, were also arrayed as respondents, and a specific direction was passed upon the State of Punjab, Haryana and UT, Chandigarh, to provide information, as to whether, the Scheme ( supra ), has been meticulously implemented, in the three States or not, and whether the budget has been allocated for the same or not.

Separate relies were filed on behalf of respondentsStates/UT, and a perusal thereof, it reflects that not only the Scheme ( supra ), has been implemented meticulously, but also, the budget has also been allocated. Upon perusal of reply(ies), it also reflects the number of beneficiaries, who have been granted protection under the said

DHARAM VIR 2025.03.13 12:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

-3-

CWP-9688-2020 (O&M)

scheme. Therefore, in view of the above, no further direction is required to be passed in this regard.

So far as, the grievance of the petitioner with regard to the order dated 21.12.2019 ( supra ), is concerned, instead of quashing the same, this Court deems it fit and appropriate to grant liberty to the petitioner to approach the the competent authority of the State of Haryana again, under the Scheme of 2018 (as amended in 2020), by filing a fresh application.

A direction is passed upon the respondent concerned that, in case, such application is filed by the petitioner, an appropriate order shall be passed, after considering his threat perceptions, if any, within a reasonable time period.

10. Disposed of accordingly.

(KULDEEP TIWARI) March 11, 2025 JUDGE dhaaramvir Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. : Yes/No

DHARAM VIR 2025.03.13 12:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document